I figure that you would get your pilots license just like you do now. You go out to the airport, fly your LSA for the required number of hours and pass a test with an FAA examiner. As far as regulating air traffic or the "skies being full of these things", I just don't see where this is a problem. If you have to go to an airport to take off and land, then you should have to follow the Federal Aviation Regulations to fly it. Maintain your Visual Flight Rules cruising altitudes (odd thousands + 500ft eastbound, even thousands + 500ft westbound), file flight plans on your way to the airport, get there, get in line to take off and go. Get in the air, talk to ATC to get "flight following" and get to your destination. The big problem right now is that big airports are too crowded, not the skies in general. The dumbest thing any would-be "Skycar" inventor would do is to make it and tell people that it could take off from any road and land on any road. This would make things way too chaotic. One thing that would make it a little better is if you didn't have to drive to the airport. If you have a couple of acres, why not make a landing strip behind your house. Or even better, live in an airpark community. Then you have 15 different families sharing the costs of building and maintaining a runway. This way you leave out the driving to the airport! You pull out of your garage, unfold your wings, do your pre-flight inspection and go. This could possibly cut your trip time in half, depending on how fast this thing can fly. Of course, small airplanes are most economical on flights that would take you at least 3 hours to drive. Another big factor in that statement is in the fuel consumption of this "roadable aircraft". Another thing that could make this more feasible is if they get it certified for IFR flights, not just playing around VFR. Then again, you would have to get your instrument rating on your pilot's license, but it is definately necessary. There have been way to many accidents where pilots with no instrument trainging have run into IFR conditions and lost control and gone spiralling into the ground (think JFK junior). As far as being easier to drive to the airport, fly where you want to go, and then renting a car when you get there, it's not always feasible. If your going to meet with a client that lives in some small town, there may not even be a rental car agency around. I think these guys have a neat idea. It may never become mainstream because it is much more of a novelty than a necessity, but they have gone about this in the right way as far as their business plan is concerned. I think it could do well with people who were planning on getting their Sport Pilot certificate anyway. At this point, it will be just like any other aircraft, the people who have the money will have one and the people who don't have enough money for it (like me) will be driving along cursing those who have money to throw away.
Modern air travel is a marvel. It's also a source of endless delay, annoyance and planet-killing greenhouse gases. A proposed hydrogen-powered hypersonic airliner could change all that. The plane is Reaction Engines's A2 concept, a Mach-5 (3,400mph) craft for 300 passengers funded in part by the European Union's Long-Term Advanced Propulsion Concepts and Technologies project (Lapcat). Lapcat wants an airliner that can fly from Brussels to Sydney in less than four hours. If built, the A2 will do just that—without producing a trace of carbon emissions.
What about the pilots?!?! I mean, if no one can see outside because there are no windows, it would take one hell of a system set up in the cockpit for the pilots to be able to do anything. The pilots would need a lot of computerized help to be able to control it. Another thing is what if the electricity fails in the aircraft? You would need one heck of a battery back-up to make sure that the monitors in the cockpit stayed on so that the pilots would have a chance to land the thing. I know that most airliners have a battery back up of between 15-45 minutes. This thing would definately need at least an hour of back up if you have to go from 150,000 feet down to sea level and fly some sort of approach. Like one person said "How's it going to take off". I mean, some airliners already have taxi help cameras, so I guess that it wouldn't be that bad, it could probably be made to be kind of like flying a simulator. One problem is that you would have to make sure that the pilots could either see outside (to scan for traffic) or make sure that the ATC system is ready to handle something like this. I can just see it the first time one of these takes off, it rockets up to its 150,000 feet and hits an older airliner on the way, or causes some MAJOR wake turbulence that knocks a 747 or two out of the sky. I like the concept, but without a MAJOR upgrade to the ATC system, and some pilots that are ready to handle speeds like that, it's not going to happen.
Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone with full articles, images and offline viewing
Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed
Share links with friends, comment on stories and more
In our December issue, Popular Science names the 100 best innovations of the year: bombproof wallpaper, self-parking cars, the fastest helicopter, and 97 more. Plus inventor profiles and videos.
Check out the best of what's new here.